Book VI. of that large and elevated nature. The inveterate habit of looking, as in that

1786.

Mutual asper sions between the ministers and leaders

of opposition.

court, at minute affairs, and that only in their most contracted relations, produced a narrowness of mind which was almost invariably at fault, when the extended relations of things, or subjects of a comprehensive nature, were the objects to be investigated and judged.* A bill of pains and penalties was a mode of penal inquiry which did not, in his opinion, afford sufficient security for justice and fair dealing toward the party accused. The last mode of proceeding, to which the House might have recourse, was that of impeachment; and that was the mode, the adoption of which he intended to recommend. He should, however, propose a slight departure from the usual order of the steps. Instead of urging the House to vote immediately a bill of impeachment, to which succeeded a Committee by whom the articles were framed, he should move for papers, in the first instance; and then draw up the articles, with all the advantage in favour of justice, which deliberation and knowledge, in place of precipitation and ignorance, were calculated to yield. He concluded by a motion for one of the sets of papers which it was his object to obtain.

Mr. Dundas thought the allusions to himself demanded a reply; and observed, that, at one time during the speech, he began to think himself, not Mr. Hastings, the criminal whom the Right Honourable Gentleman meant to impeach: that he was obliged, however, to those who had any charge to prefer against him, when they appeared without disguise: that he wished to meet his accusers face to face: that he had never professed any intention to prosecute the late Governor-General of India : that the extermination of the Rohillas, the aggression upon the Mahrattas, and the misapplication of the revenue, were the points on which his condemnation rested that he did move the resolutions which had been read; and entertained now the same sentiments which he then expressed: that the resolutions he had moved, went only to the point of recall: that though in several particulars he deemed the conduct of Mr. Hastings highly culpable; yet, as often as he examined it, which he had done very minutely, the possibility of annexing to it a criminal intention eluded his grasp that the Directors were often the cause of those proceedings to which the appearance of criminality was attached: that after India was glutted with their patronage, no fewer than thirty-six writers had been sent out, to load with expense the civil establishment, in one year; that year of purity, when the situation of the present accusers sufficiently indicated the shop, from

* "The magnitude of the trial would overwhelm," he said, "the varying multitude of lesser causes, of meum and tuum, assault and battery, conversion and trover, trespass and burglary," &c.

1786.

which the commodity was supplied that subsequent to the period at which he CHAP. I. had moved the resolutions in question, Mr. Hastings had rendered important services; and merited the vote of thanks with which his employers had thought fit to reward him. Mr. Dundas concluded by saying, that he had no objection to the motion, and, but for the insinuations against himself, should not have thought it necessary to speak.

The defence, however, of Mr. Dundas is not less inconsistent than his conduct. His profession of a belief that he himself was to be the object of the prosecution, was an affectation of wit, which proved not, though Mr. Hastings were polluted, that Mr. Dundas was pure; or that in the accusation of the former it was not highly proper, or even requisite, to hold up to view what was suspicious in the conduct of the latter. Whether he ever had the intention to prosecute Mr. Hastings, was known only to himself. But that he had pronounced accusations against Mr. Hastings, which were either unjust, or demanded a prosecution, all the world could judge. When he said that the resolutions which he had moved, and which had immediately been read, implied nothing more than recall, it proved only one of two things; either that he regarded public delinquency, in a very favourable light; or that this was one of those bold assertions, in the face of evidence, which men of a certain character are always ready to make. If Warren Hastings had really, as affirmed by Mr. Dundas, and voted at his suggestion by the House of Commons, " in sundry instances tarnished the honour, and violated the policy of his country, brought great calamities on India, and enor mous expenses to the East India Company," had he merited nothing but recall? Lord Macartney was recalled; Sir John Macpherson was recalled; many others were recalled, against whom no delinquency was alleged. Recall was not considered as a punishment. And was nothing else due to such offences as those which Mr. Dundas laid to the charge of Mr. Hastings? But the words of Mr. Dundas's resolutions either were very ill adapted to express his meaning, or they did imply much more than recall. Of the two resolutions which Mr. Burke had required to be read, the last recommended the measure of recall to the Court of Directors, whose prerogative it was; the first recommended something else, some signal mark of the displeasure of the parliament of Great Britain. What might this be? Surely not recall; which was not within the province of parliament. Surely not a mere advice to the Directors to recall, which seems to fall wonderfully short of a signal mark of its displeasure. But Mr. Dundas still retained the very sentiments respecting the conduct of Mr. Hastings which he had entertained when he described it as requiring "some signal mark of the displeasure of the

1

1786.

BOOK VI. British parliament;" yet as often as he examined that conduct, the possibility of annexing to it a criminal intention eluded his grasp; nay, he regarded Mr. Hastings as the proper object of the Company's thanks; that is to say, in the opinion of Mr. Dundas, Mr. Hastings was, at one and the same moment, the proper object of "some signal mark of the displeasure of the British parliament," and of a vote of thanks at the East India House. The Court of Directors were the cause of the bad actions of Mr. Hastings. Why then did Mr. Dundas pronounce those violent censures of Mr. Hastings? And why did he profess that he now entertained the same sentiments which he then declared? He thought him culpable, forsooth, but not criminal; though he had described him as having "violated the honour and policy of his country, brought great calamities upon India, and enormous expense on his employers;" so tenderly did Mr. Dundas think it proper to deal with public offences, which he himself described as of the deepest die! But he could not affix criminal intention to the misconduct of Mr. Hastings. It required much less ingenuity than that of Mr. Dundas, to make it appear that there is no such thing as criminal intention in the world. The man who works all day to earn a crown, and the man who robs him of it, as he goes home at night, act, each of them, with the very same intention; that of obtaining a certain portion of money. Mr. Dundas might have known, that criminal intention is by no means necessary to constitute the highest possible degree of public delinquency. Where is the criminal intention of the sentinel who falls asleep at his post? Where was the criminal intention of Admiral Byng, who suffered a capital punishment? The assassin of Henry the Fourth of France was doubtless actuated by the purest and most heroic intentions. Yet who doubts that he was the proper object of penal exaction? Such are the inconsistencies of a speech, which yet appears to have passed as sterling in the assembly to which it was addressed; and such is a sample of the speeches which have had so much influence in the government of this nation!

The year in which Mr. Fox had been minister was accused of overloading the patronage of India; and Mr. Dundas hazarded a curious proposition, to which his experience yielded weight, that the circumstance of who was minister always indicated the shop, as he called it, from which Indian patronage was retailed. This called up Mr. Fox, who began by declaring that he spoke on account solely of the charge which had been levelled against himself. Surmise might be answered, he thought, by assertion; and, therefore, he solemnly declared, that he had never been the cause of sending out except one single writer to India, and that during the administration of Lord Shelburne. The consistency, however,

1786.

of the Honourable Gentleman suggested strongly a few remarks, notwithstand- CHÁP. I. ing his boasted readiness to face his opponents. The power of facing, God knew, was not to be numbered among his wants; even when driven, as on the present occasion, to the miserable necessity of applauding, in the latter part of his speech, what he condemned in the former. His opinion of Mr. Hastings remained the same as when he arraigned him: Yet he thought him a fit object of thanks. He condemned the Rohilla war; the treaty of Poorunder; and the expense of his administration. Gracious heaven! Was that all? Was the shameful plunder of the Mogul Emperor, the shameful plunder of the Rajah of Benares, the shameful plunder of the Princesses of Oude, worthy of no moral abhorrence, of no legal visitation? Was the tender language now held by the Honourable Gentleman, respecting the author of those disgraceful transactions, in conformity either with the facts, or his former declarations?

Mr. Pitt rose in great warmth; to express, he said, some part of the indignation, with which his breast was filled, and which, he trusted, no man of generous and honourable feelings could avoid sharing with him. Who had accused his Honourable Friend of guilt, in now applauding the man whom he had formerly condemned? Who, but he, who, in the face of Europe, had united councils with the man whom for a series of years, he had loaded with the most extravagant epithets of reproach, and threatened with the severest punishment! The height of the colouring, which that individual had bestowed upon the supposed inconsistency of his friend, might have led persons, unacquainted with his character, to suppose that he possessed a heart really capable of feeling abhorrence at the meanness and baseness of those who shifted their sentiments with their interests. As to the charge of inconsistency against his Honourable Friend, was it not very possible for the conduct of any man to merit, at one time, condemnation, at another, applause? Yet it was true, that the practice of the accuser had instructed the world in the merit of looking to persons, not to principles! He then proceeded to extenuate the criminality of the Rohilla war. And concluded, by ascribing the highest praise to that portion of the administration of Hastings which had succeeded the date of the resolutions of Mr. Dundas.

On this speech, what first suggests itself is, that a great proportion of it is employed, not in proving that Mr. Dundas had not, but in proving that Mr. Fox had, been corruptly inconsistent. In what respect, however, did it clear the character of Mr. Dundas, to implicate that of the man who accused him? How great soever the baseness of Mr. Fox, that of Mr. Dundas might equal, and even surpass it. True, indeed, the conduct of a man, at one time bad, might, at another

Book VI. time, be the reverse. But would that be a good law which should exempt crimes

1786.

The mode of procedure, by

dence on

which to

from punishment, provided the perpetrators happened afterwards to perform acts of a useful description? A man might thus get securely rich by theft and robbery, on the condition of making a beneficent use of the fruits of his crimes. "The former portion of the administration of Mr. Hastings was criminal; the latter, meritorious." It suited the minister's present purpose to say so. But they who study the history will probably find, that of the praise which is due to the administra tion of Mr. Hastings, a greater portion belongs to the part which Mr. Pitt condemns, than to that which he applauds: To such a degree was either his judgment incorrect, or his language deceitful!

The production of the papers was not opposed, till a motion was made for educing evi- those, relating to the business of Oude during the latter years of Mr. Hastings's administration. To this Mr. Pitt objected. He said, it would introduce new ground accu- matter; and make the ground of the accusation wider than necessary: He sation, opposed by the wished to confine the judicial inquiry to the period embraced in the reports of the lawyers and the ministers. Committees of 1781. Mr. Dundas stood up for the same doctrine. If the object, however, was, to do justice between Mr. Hastings and the nation, it will be difficult to imagine a reason, why one, rather than another part of his administration should escape inquiry. Even the friends, however, of Mr. Hastings, urged the necessity of obtaining the Oude papers; and, therefore, they were granted. A motion was made for papers relative to the Mahratta peace. It was opposed, as leading to the discovery of secrets. On ground like this, it was replied, the minister could never want a screen to any possible delinquency. A motion for the papers relative to the negotiations which Mr. Hastings had carried on at Delhi in the last months of his administration, was also made, and urged with great importunity. It was opposed on the same grounds, and both were rejected.

During the debates on these motions, objections had begun to be started, on the mode of procedure which Mr. Burke had embraced. To call for papers relative to misconduct, and from the information which these might afford, to shape the charges by the guilt, was not, it was contended, a course which parliament ought to allow. The charges ought to be exhibited first; and no evidentiary matter granted, but such alone as could be shown to bear upon the charge. These objections, however, produced not any decisive result, till the 3d of April, when Mr. Burke proposed to call to the bar some of the gentlemen who had been ordered, as witnesses, to attend. On this occasion, the crown lawyers opposed in phalanx. Their speeches were long, but their arguments only two. Not to